:
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to the ninth meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on October 24, 2020, the committee is commencing its study on processing capacity.
Our witness panels will each last 45 minutes today, followed by 30 minutes of committee business at the end of the meeting.
[Translation]
Today's meeting is being held in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of September 23, 2020. Proceedings will be posted on the House of Commons website. For your information, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entire committee.
To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either the Floor, English or French. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. This is a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the Chair. When you are not speaking, your mic should be on mute.
[English]
With that, we are ready to begin.
I would like to start by welcoming our witnesses for the first hour. We have, appearing as an individual, Mr. Sylvain Charlebois, professor, Dalhousie University, director, Agri-Food Analytics Lab.
From the University of Guelph, we have Mr. Malcolm Campbell, vice-president, research; and Rene Van Acker, dean, Ontario Agricultural College.
Welcome, everyone.
With that, we'll start with seven and a half minutes of opening statements.
Mr. Charlebois, if you're ready, you have the floor.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and dear members. I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to speak about an especially important sector of our economy, food manufacturing and processing.
First off, I would like to acknowledge that I am currently in Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people.
Food manufacturing is really the strategic centrepiece—the anchor, if you will—of our entire agri-food sector, and it is slowly eroding. Without a strong food manufacturing sector, controlling our innovation agenda, supporting our farmers and providing high-quality, domestically produced foods to Canadians become much more challenging—much more. Without these, we make our entire supply chain more vulnerable to factors that are often beyond our control, such as climate change, mixed food safety standards, currency fluctuations and logistical disruptions.
Food innovation has become a focal point for most countries in recent years, as governments recognize the importance of growing economies in both rural and urban settings. Innovation will gain greater market currency when achieved in processing. Some countries have achieved greater success than others in fostering a culture of innovative thinking for the food industry. Research that benchmarks countries using specific innovation pillars has never been conducted until now. The Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, in partnership with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Food, Health & Consumer Products Canada, compares how countries have been creating proper conditions for the industry to innovate further. To our knowledge, it is the first attempt to compare countries specifically on food innovation. We have been working on this report for about 18 months now, and it will be released in February 2021.
The global food innovation index compares factors contributing to innovation in the food, beverage and agri-food industries across the following 10 countries: Canada, the U.S., Mexico, the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and Australia. Countries were selected to provide geographic diversity within the sample, as well as a range of mid- to top-level performances in terms of GDP. As this index was generated in a Canadian context, countries were also selected based on trade capacities and competitiveness. The framework used for our evaluation is in the appendix of my statement.
Based on the data we currently have, Canada did not perform well, especially under pillars 1 and 2, which cover our regulatory environment and how business competitiveness is affecting our food industry’s overall performance. This is one of the main reasons that the consideration of a code of practice is so critical at this juncture. Capitalizing our operations here while avoiding the scenario of over-regulation is key.
However, here are some hard realities about how deficient our food processing sector has been over the years. Beyond Meat, one of the most successful plant-based companies in the world, should have been Canadian. Maple Leaf Foods, which recently opted to build a $300-million plant in Indiana, should have done so in Canada. Fairlife, a nutrient-rich, ultra-filtered milk, a brand owned by Coca-Cola and now sold in Canada, should have been a Canadian-designed product.
We should, however, celebrate some true achievements in Canada despite our lack of innovative focus. The Leamington story is truly a miracle. The recent Kraft Heinz, Corona and Stella Artois announcements are also very positive steps. The greatest and most effective food supercluster we currently have in Canada, which generates an abundance of innovation, is called President’s Choice, but it is actually a closed innovation system, not an open one.
Protein Industries Canada is one of Canada's best open innovation systems that we have right now, and to replicate such a model for other commodities is worthy of consideration.
[Translation]
Over the past decade, nearly 4,000 food processing plants have opened in the United States, compared to only 20 in Canada.
In addition, 83% of new branded products launched in Canada have been neither designed nor manufactured here. This lack of innovation is deeply rooted in our inability to think creatively or to generate intellectual property for this essential agri-food industry. Human capital is also a problem. There are currently 28,000 vacant positions in this sector, which clearly has a problem building human capital.
Our food processing sector must do more to achieve the ambitious objectives stated in the Barton report. This isn't just an issue of food self-sufficiency; it's also a matter of creating jobs in the regions by promoting greater export growth.
Thank you very much for your attention.
On behalf of the University of Guelph, we would like to thank all of you members today for the opportunity to present to you. We report to you today from the traditional territory of the Attawandaron people, and today this is the treaty territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.
The University of Guelph, where I am today, is Canada's food university. We're recognized internationally as a leading academic and research institution, ranking first in Canada and third worldwide in agricultural and food research.
At the University of Guelph, we are committed to solving real-world challenges in the agri-food sector by stimulating innovation and equipping our students with the knowledge to become leaders in the field.
Regarding the committee's study, we believe that Canada's food and beverage processing sector has strong growth potential, specifically with international exports.
As vice-president of research, I know first-hand, and will therefore focus on, the necessity of investing in research and development as a means to drive innovation and in turn encourage growth in capacity and in exports in the sector. My colleague, Dean Van Acker, will then speak to the necessity of training the sector's next-generation talent pool.
Investments into R and D are needed to grow Canada's processing capacity while achieving better integration throughout the value chain. A key point here is that Canada's food and beverage processing sector is unique in its composition. Centralized right here in our own backyard in Ontario, the food processing sector is composed of some large and medium-sized companies and a very large number of small and very small companies.
For those on the smaller scale, access to R and D resources remains an immense challenge. R and D and innovation need to be considered along the entirety of the value chain, with strong localized connections between primary producer, processor and the market.
There's an advantage in incorporating vertical integration where there is a line of sight across the value chain, where innovation and processing will impact both upstream and downstream elements. We see this first-hand at the University of Guelph in our vertically integrated R and D, for example, in Canada's beef sector.
At the University of Guelph, from outdoor pasture research in northern Ontario to sophisticated livestock production research in Elora and onward to our unique CFIA-licensed abattoir to innovation and finished product and, finally, to consumer preference and nutritional testing, we conduct meat science research that completely integrates along the value chain, and we see where innovation has an impact.
Innovation is embedded throughout the entire value chain, and we do the same at the University of Guelph for many other verticals, from dairy to row crops to fruits and vegetables, covering many of the 200 food commodities that call Ontario home.
What we've learned here is that a fundamental component of our R and D value-add is providing the most modern and technologically driven system to our partners, as well as partnering to capture that value-add as a distinct selling point at the market.
Looking forward, technological trends and advanced manufacturing such as automation, blockchain traceability and artificial intelligence will be critical in the food and beverage processing sector. Again, we see that first-hand through our hands-on R and D at the University of Guelph. Value chains based on real-time information technology will help us deliver and manage resources more efficiently, producing more food and reducing our environmental footprint.
Investments in R and D are key in bridging that gap. We need to invest in the possibilities of Canadian companies' capacity to grow to export sophistication. A key element of getting this right is that we need to integrate a highly trained talent pool into that R and D component.
I'm now going to turn to my colleague, Dean Rene Van Acker, to speak to the training of that talent pool.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for this opportunity.
My name is Rene Van Acker. I am dean of the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph.
I want to note that I am also a member of the Deans Council, Agriculture, Food & Veterinary Medicine, and I helped to lead the Growing Canada's food and beverage processing sector report, which we prepared for Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and which the committee was previously briefed on by Professor Martin Scanlon, who is dean of the faculty of agricultural and food sciences from the University of Manitoba. That was on November 19.
I'd like to pick up where Dr. Campbell left off, specifically with how investments in research and development have a direct correlation to training the next generation of highly skilled employees and agri-food leaders.
Investments in university agri-food research, including in infrastructure, become investments in our capacity to teach and train highly qualified students through hands-on learning, with real-world equipment in world-leading facilities, creating the future and working to grow Canada's agri-food sector hand in hand with food company partners of all sizes, including small and very small food companies.
As many of you will know, there is a growing labour market demand in the food and beverage processing sector. Professor Charlebois referred to it as well. As an institution focused on educating agriculture and food leaders, the University of Guelph understands these trends uniquely. Even if we consider only the Ontario job market, for example, for our graduates, there are currently four jobs for every graduate of an agriculture and food-specific program. In 2012, it was three for every one graduate.
Considering that the main concentration of the food and beverage processing sector in Canada is in Ontario, this is a direct barrier to growth in the processing sector. Access to highly skilled talent is essential for the industry to grow its productivity and to support innovation and trade, as well as to grow in the sophistication required to be export leaders. We need these highly qualified professionals across the value chain from field to fork. A talent pool with diversity in not only expertise but also in composition, reflecting the global population, is necessary. Canada is fortunate to have a comparative advantage, with large diaspora communities that can present incredible opportunities in market testing.
In conclusion, I would say that the opportunity for growth in processing capacity is right in front of us, as all the right ingredients are here. Investments in research and development and in highly qualified personnel training are the missing links.
On behalf of Dr. Campbell and myself, I'd like to extend my gratitude to the committee for this opportunity. The University of Guelph looks forward to continuing to be a trusted partner to both government and industry.
:
That is a fair question.
I would say that right now the pressure that is being put on processors, coming from food distributors, is immense. It doesn't allow for any projects to be capitalized upstream in processing in particular.
One of the reasons I brought up our global food innovation index is that it does point to the lack of investments coming from abroad. Kellogg's, PepsiCo, Unilever and Procter & Gamble all hire thousands of Canadians, and they are now divesting. They're now leaving the country because they can't capitalize any projects as a result of these increasing fees. The competitive environment here in Canada is not very attractive.
What the protein industries cluster with PIC, Protein Industries Canada, is doing is actually the reverse. I know you'll hear from Mr. Greuel later, but it is actually doing the opposite, attracting more DI—direct investment—from abroad, and that's what's needed.
:
Thank you. I'll jump right in.
Mr. Charlebois, 50% of Canada's raw food, raw products, are exported. By extension, unless my thinking is wrong, that makes them relatively competitive, particularly as some of those raw products are then reimported in their processed or manufactured form. Of course, the example I am most familiar with is cucumbers here in southern Ontario. We actually now grow more, after all of our picklers closed, and they are all being exported to the U.S. and then brought back in.
You mentioned four impediments to processing: climate change; I missed the second one, and I'm sorry; currency fluctuations; and logistical problems. Climate change would affect our raw production, but let's take that one off the table for the moment. Could you comment on the priority of those other three? Where is it, or is it very much the simple fact that there isn't enough margin in it for our processors and manufacturers because of the retailer concentration?
:
Thank you to my colleague.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I want to follow your lead and say that I'm calling in from the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee and Neutral people, just down the road from the University of Guelph.
I might stick to the point of labour.
Mr. Van Acker, can you elaborate on this? We talk about training the next generation. You mentioned that there are about four jobs for every graduate. I know the University of Guelph well because my son attends there, so I'm a proud parent of a Gryphon.
Can you elaborate on what we can do, some best practices? How can we make sure that people who are coming out of universities are highly trained in agriculture and processing, and how we can help them get into the workforce? We seem to be short on labour, yet we have the next generations who are highly trained and ready to go to work. I'd love to hear more.
:
Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
As we're continuing this conversation on our food processing study, it's remarkable the parallels we have with an earlier study that we did in the 42nd Parliament on technology and innovation in this sector. I thought that was a fascinating study. I was lucky to be a member of the committee during that time.
One of the witnesses we had during that study in the previous Parliament was one of my constituents. He started up a company called EIO Diagnostics that is tackling the problem of early mastitis detection in the dairy industry, which costs the industry millions of dollars per year worldwide.
During the course of his testimony, he said as a start-up that the four pillars that foster young companies are capital, talent, advisory services and markets. He said that as a nation we're pretty good at the talent part in Canada, but a lot of companies—I think, Professor Charlebois, you alluded to this—really have difficulty accessing capital in that start-up phase, when a young, intrepid entrepreneur has that really big idea, but securing the capital to get the company from the drawing board up to an actual company....
Professor Charlebois, I'll start with you. Could you comment on his testimony and, if you want to, provide a little more detail on how the federal government could structure those grants to allow these intrepid entrepreneurs who get that big idea to actually start up something physically here in Canada?
:
Those are very good points. I will say that I do mentor companies myself, from here in Halifax to Calgary. I work with District Ventures in Calgary, which is led by Arlene Dickinson in Montreal. I help companies.
The struggle we have beyond the capital issue and beyond the talent is with the discipline and the mentorship that these companies need. Once you educate venture capitalists about agri-food, about the fact that you need to be patient and you can't go in and out in two years and get your money, as you can in clean tech or fintech, then you're in good shape, but also these entrepreneurs need the support and the connection.
The one thing that District Ventures has done that I thought was really valuable is to connect and partner with retailers to test products in a real setting, which has allowed some companies to be successful. In Halifax, at Dalhousie we actually partnered with the Rotman School of business at the University of Toronto to establish what we call the “creative destruction lab”.
This lab is a model that has been replicated I think four or five times across the country, including in Calgary, at UBC, in Montreal and for us here in Halifax. It's a nine-month program providing a lot of mentorship to entrepreneurs. It provides a lot of discipline as well. We need something like this for agri-food as soon as possible. If there's one recommendation I would make, it's to make a CDL à la agri-food. Right now, there's nothing.
:
I'll double down on Professor Charlebois' comment around having the capacity to incubate company start-ups here in Canada. EIO is a great example.
By the way, MP MacGregor, it was wonderful to have you in Guelph. It's great to see you again.
If we take a look at the investment opportunities in start-ups in Canada, even during COVID we saw an increase in venture capital going into start-up companies across the country, and we also saw significant federal investments in that regard. I know that Sheryl Groeneweg has already talked to this particular committee. She spoke explicitly to the investments that ISED has made under the SIF, the strategic innovation fund, as but one example. Similarly, the regional development offices, such as FedDev here in Ontario, have been making investments in those companies to mobilize them. As Professor Charlebois said and I would reiterate, the challenge is making sure that those investments are in companies that are relevant to this particular sector, the agri-food sector, and more specifically to food processing. I think there are clearly opportunities there.
It seems to be the case that, as I often describe it, everybody and their grandmother has a recipe that's lived in their family for years and years and they want to start a company on the basis of that. The challenge is pulling that together into a venture that will actually gain mileage, gain traction and have a long life. Professor Charlebois mentioned having the supports in place. One of those four components that you describe as necessary is the guidance for those companies. I would say that actually does exist across the country—maybe not specifically for agri-food, but we have some great examples there, with Bioenterprise as but one example here in Ontario. You'll be hearing from Bill Greuel later today. I think PIC is wanting to be very active in this space as well.
Other international players are looking at opportunities in Canada for investment. We ourselves just partnered with SVG Thrive, a major investor out of Silicon Valley that's looking at Canada as an opportunity to grow companies.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.
Thanks as well to the members and other witnesses for taking part in this meeting on such an important topic.
I would like briefly to introduce our organization, which is called Le petit abattoir. We are a solidarity cooperative that is subject to federal inspection. Our aim is to offer poultry slaughtering services to small-scale producers, who are struggling to find their place among the industrial and automated facilities. We offer them a solution in the form of a modular poultry micro abattoir. The model will be reproducible and adaptable in various regions, and we plan to assist Canadian communities in developing and implementing their solutions.
As emphasized during the committee's meetings, the current health crisis has amplified a remarkable groundswell of efforts to buy local, to support small farms that market within short supply chains and to carry on this type of agriculture, which provides structure in the regions and creates social ties. It has also been stated over and over again that the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the fragile nature of the country's processing capacity, but what may have been outlined to a lesser degree, and what I would like to discuss today, is how we should address this concept of capacity.
There are two approaches to slaughtering. On the one hand, you can look at processing capacity based on the number of head and determine that slaughtering capacity based on the number of head produced in the country is adequate but undermined by infrastructure concentration. To solve the problem, you must correct deficiencies in the current facilities and networks. On the other hand, with a view to territorializing food systems and food system resilience, you have to look at capacity based on geographic proximity between producers and processors and on the ability to mesh production scales, failing which the problem remains intact.
In recent decades, we have seen what might be called a technology gap appear between small-scale production and medium- and large-scale production. That gap has occurred as a result of a decline in the number of abattoirs and an increase in the size and output of remaining facilities.
Consequently, you have, on the one hand, traditional production, which fortunately enjoys increasingly efficient infrastructure well adapted to its scale of production.
On the other hand, there has been an increase in the number of small farms that, by contrast, are less and less well served and less and less compatible with the remaining, more mechanized and automated slaughterhouses. These producers face numerous issues and are required to transport their animals hundreds of kilometers to the few abattoirs that still agree to process small animal consignments. As a result, they can no longer guarantee the animals' welfare in accordance with the system of values that guides their work as producers. In addition, they can't always guarantee product traceability, which is essential to marketing a distinctive product. They are also required to bear the additional workload and economic burden involved in transportation.
Lastly, the inherent dependent relationship and power differential always favour the operator, a fact that limits the producer's ability to seek accommodations and express discontent. As a result, these small farms are less and less able to respond in a viable manner to the growing public demand for the type of products they offer. Traditional-production farms and small-scale farms operating in closed supply chains therefore do not find themselves in comparable situations. This situation therefore justifies us in addressing the issue of processing capacity based on these two distinct systems.
In the following three points, I would like to provide some food for thought on how to improve the processing capacity of the small-scale farm network.
First, we should aim to increase the number of small abattoirs in the regions and to adopt a mobile slaughtering strategy. This kind of infrastructure network would help establish an investment-friendly climate, which in turn would reduce economic uncertainty and enhance the viability of these businesses and the food security of their communities, while guaranteeing animal welfare, particularly in the mobile slaughtering scenario. With nearby infrastructure adapted to their situation, small-scale farmers will increase their herds, some will diversify production, and new farmers will establish themselves in the region. An abattoir is not just an abattoir; it is a rural development tool.
Second, we must, without delay, establish non-repayable assistance to provide community initiatives with the initial capital that is essential in implementing their solutions. We have, at the community level, knowledge, energy, a will and solidarity that must be invested in now because all we lack are financial resources. Many business opportunities will be wasted if we cannot draw on our community's strengths. We are motivated by need, and that's a guarantee of success.
Third, you have often discussed the regulatory burden in this committee. I'd like to underscore the organizational culture that prevails in many departments, where, all too often, people focus on means rather than ends.
Small facilities characteristically do not seek ways to avoid meeting standards but rather ways to meet standards by their own means, which are usually more limited than those of conventional facilities. Consequently, we must rethink the "same for all" paradigm by helping to adapt means based on an objective that is in fact the same for all, regardless of means. Fortunately, there are highly competent, open-minded and respectful people in all these departments, which makes it possible for us to innovate with confidence.
However, this way of addressing matters must become the watchword in the departments so that stakeholders can create and seize opportunities. The European example is inspiring here, as European authorities are lifting barriers to entry by allowing farming and animal welfare defence organizations to work hand in hand to establish farm slaughtering procedures that are secure from a health standpoint and by certifying facilities rather than every animal carcass.
Similarly, there has been an unprecedented spread of micro abattoirs in the United States, especially since the start of the pandemic, all of which have received technical and financial assistance in setting up.
In conclusion, just as we acknowledge that the resilience of nature depends on biodiversity, we must value and protect the diversity of economic models. This is necessary for the resilience of our economic and food systems. We must unleash energies and ensure that the primary aim of the assistance measures and regulations in place is to ensure that no one is left behind.
Thank you for your attention.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Greuel. I'm the CEO of Protein Industries Canada. I'm joining you today from Regina, so I'd like to take a second to acknowledge that I'm on Treaty 4 territory, the original land of the Cree, Ojibway, Saulteaux, Dakota, Nakota and Lakota, and homeland of the Métis nation.
Protein Industries Canada is one of Canada's five innovation superclusters. We were created because Canada has the potential to be a leader in the production of plant protein ingredients and food.
We were created to capture more value here at home and create a significant economic benefit for Canadians. We will do that by increasing ingredient and food processing capacity in Canada.
The Barton report, which has been mentioned today, laid the foundation for Protein Industries Canada, and we continue to use the goals set out in this report as our top-line objectives.
To date, we have over 240 members from coast to coast. Along with our private industry partners, we have invested well over $300 million into Canada's agri-food sector, with a large portion of that directly supporting ingredient and food processing activities.
Agriculture is a Canadian success story. We are known worldwide as the supplier of high-quality cereals, pulses and oilseed crops. Through the hard work of our farmers, ranchers, researchers, processors and many other important links in the value chain, agriculture and food, including food and beverage manufacturing, contributes upward of $112 billion to our GDP and employs more than 2.3 million Canadians.
Our success is understandable. We have the third-largest area of arable land per capita in the world, with some of the best growing conditions. We have proven to be resilient and dedicated, adopting new technologies to increase production while sequestering carbon in our soils, yet for everything we have to be proud of, we also still have much work to do.
We are only the 11th-largest global agri-food economy ,and I would argue that we should be much higher. We continue to be commodity-focused, making us vulnerable to trade disruptions of the kind we witnessed with canola sales to China and our pulse trade with India. We are lagging in science and innovation expenditures relative to many other nations. The reality is that we have a lot of land and resources, but we are not a large enough global agri-food sector. We have room to grow.
There is one way we can overcome these challenges to create more opportunities for Canada and for our people, and that's to increase ingredient and food processing here at home to add more value to raw commodities in Canada. Increasing ingredient and food-processing capacity in Canada is critical to our economic recovery and future growth. By increasing Canada's processing capacity, we will secure a safe supply of healthy, sustainable foods for Canadians and for our partners around the globe. We will insulate ourselves against trade disruption and create jobs and wealth for Canadians.
The vulnerability of our agri-food supply chain became evident in the early days of COVID-19, when for the first time many Canadians experienced a shortage of staples at their grocery store shelves. Thankfully, our food system bent but did not break. This is good news for Canadians, but we need to take some lessons from what 2020 has handed us, most notably in how we are fostering and supporting the food processing sector in Canada to ensure a resilient system that can take advantage of the growth opportunity that ingredient and food processing offers us to insulate ourselves in future from shocks to the system of the kind we experienced in the early days of COVID-19.
I believe we must do as much for the ingredient and food processing sector as we've done for primary production. It is not a question of either/or; it is a question of “and”. If Canada makes ingredient and food processing and food manufacturing a higher national priority, we have the opportunity to build an industry that can help with our economic recovery while also ensuring we insulate ourselves from future economic and unforeseen shocks, such as the global pandemic we are currently facing.
More processing will also insulate us from trade disruptions, and more importantly, create economic growth and jobs for Canadians. We know that by processing even an additional 20% of Canadian crops, such as pulses, canola and wheat, here in Canada, we can add an additional $12 billion to our national economy every year. I believe 20% is just the start and that we can and should do more.
In order to reach that objective and those of the Barton report, we need to take our ingredient and food processing sector to a higher priority. We need continued and deliberate investment and a plan like the one we have at Protein Industries Canada.
Canada needs to be a leader in science, technology and innovation. We need a regulatory environment that can keep up with the pace of innovation to ensure that our products can get to store shelves.
We need continued access to new markets to build on the brand as a preferred and reliable commodity supplier and to ensure that Canada is a preferred choice for sustainably produced ingredients and food. We need to attract capital investment. We know that in order to reach our full potential and to be able to process more here in Canada, we will need a significant amount of investment to build new processing facilities.
We are starting to see and build momentum. We have seen Roquette build the world's largest wet-fractionation pea processing facility in Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, and Merit Functional Foods' new processing plant in Winnipeg will open in early 2021. As well, Verdient Foods and Ingredion continue to expand and commission new technologies in Saskatchewan.
Protein Industries Canada is working with all of these partners to do its part to grow Canada's processing sector. We must build on the momentum and capture this opportunity for Canada.
We continue to make connections between companies, from processors in the west to food manufacturers in the east and to multinational food companies that are incorporating Canadian ingredients into their global food brands. This work, and more, is what will help grow Canada's processing sector, a sector that's of the utmost importance and one that's a growth opportunity for Canada.
I have had the honour of being involved in agriculture my entire life, from growing up on our family farm in central Saskatchewan to working in seed genetics and crop protection to working in the public service in regulatory and policy roles. I'm very proud to be a part of this sector. This job as CEO of Protein Industries Canada is by far the most exciting, because I'm helping write a new chapter for Canada's agri-food sector, one that helps Canada become a global leader in the production of high-quality, sustainably produced ingredients.
I want to thank you for your time today and for your hard work and commitment to Canada's agri-food sector.
:
It's definitely possible to do it for red meat because Europe and the United States are doing it with mobile slaughtering and slaughtering in micro abattoirs. It's entirely practicable and possible. It seems exotic as we talk about it here, but we're lagging behind what's going on elsewhere.
With regard to regulations, it's high time we started thinking about models such as these and viewing them as complementing the big abattoirs, which, I repeat, are necessary. We need to find, not our place within the big infrastructure facilities, but our own solutions on our own scale. The same is absolutely true for red meat.
As for repayable assistance, we currently need $500,000 to launch a project such as ours. If we launched 20 projects like it, we could generate economies of scale, and it would cost much less per project.
As regards inspection, if authorization were granted for the facility itself rather than each carcass, we would save even more, and we could more quickly find solutions across the country without putting too much pressure on the resources already deployed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA.
:
We haven't started up yet. So we can't say whether we have a labour problem or not.
However, we expect a labour problem will arise, and we have strategies to solve it. For example, we could let farmers slaughter their own animals and be paid for it. In that way, they would be taking part in the entire producer work process. Many of our members have already expressed a real desire to do so.
We have several other strategies to include people in our labour force. For example, we're starting up a slaughter training program on the Brome-Missisquoi campus, which is in the neighbouring RCM and offers butchery training. Students could come and take their course on the job in our abattoir, which would guarantee us new employees with every class.
So there are ways of cooperating, such as this one, that can vastly facilitate the solution to any labour problems we encounter.
I'd like to add that, in other abattoirs, in France, for example, the farmers do the slaughtering work themselves.
Madame Ouellet, I'll continue with you. I'm very intrigued by the projects that you've brought to the attention of the committee, and I'll tell you why.
I have a small farming property. We raise chickens. My riding is here on Vancouver Island, and we have had the same struggles in trying to find processing capacity. We're very lucky here in the Cowichan valley, because we do have Island Farmhouse Poultry. It has expanded its operations, but it's almost like when you expand a highway: More cars come. It has actually had more customers come as a result of its expansion. Last year, we were forced to take an hour and a half drive with our chickens to find slaughtering capacity.
Your testimony also closely parallels what we heard from Judy Stafford of Cowichan Green Community at a previous committee meeting. She's looking for those kinds of funds to establish a commercial kitchen.
I think what you're proposing here is absolutely applicable to many rural areas in Canada. That's why I'm very intrigued about it.
You've already answered a lot of the questions, so could you give us a ballpark figure of the cost involved in converting one of those sea containers or a mobile trailer to get it up to the standards that are necessary for it to be approved as a licensed facility?
:
In our project, we were surprised not to see any major difference in facility costs between federally certified facilities and others certified at the provincial level. It was surprising because we had expected it to cost more.
As to requirements, when you build facilities seeking federal government approval from the outset, you have to bear roughly the same costs as if you wanted certification issued based on hazard analysis critical control point, or HACCP, and to be subject to provincial inspection. That's not really where you see the difference.
What's interesting—and what we've understood—is that the major challenge that small provincial abattoirs face in adapting and moving up to the next level, federal inspection, stems from the fact that they're already operating in infrastructure that requires adaptations and that their practices also have to be adapted. That step is thus much steeper than if you were starting by seeking federal certification. We think the best way is to start by requesting federal approval. Then you can generate economies of scale.
I think our project is too costly right now compared to what it might cost once we've met all the technical challenges. When we can operate in a network, we'll be able to build not one but 20 abattoirs, which would be scattered across the country. Then we'll be able to achieve economies of scale and reduce both the problem and the costs of installation.